This is an excellent, up-to-date treatment of the subject that interacts
with the standard arguments as well as recent developments in paedobaptist
thought. The author is a former paedobaptist. The book can be obtained from Founders Press.

Regrettably, some of the best books are out of print, but a few
have been reprinted:

This book is a definitive treatment of the subject, interacting both
with older sources such as Calvin and Baxter, as well as with more modern
advocates of infant baptism. The book is out of print but may be ordered
from

This is an eminently readable book that makes many of the same
arguments as Jewett. According to the Reformed Baptist grapevine,
Kingdon wants to update the work in the near future. However, I have
been hearing this for a long time, so don't hold your breath.

Manual of Church Order by John L. Dagg, 1850. Reprinted
by Sprinkle Publications.

Dagg deals with the subject in the general framework of ecclesiology.
He addresses 1) arguments for infant church membership and 2) direct
arguments for infant baptism. Dagg has a special ability to take
arguments apart and address the root of the matter. He also has a
chapter on the meaning of baptizo, which is the best thing I
have ever seen on the subject. This chapter addresses the best
arguments put forth by writers such as J. W. Dale, whose work on this
subject has been reprinted recently. Dagg's
Manual is
available on the web at the
Founders Ministries site.

Should Babies Be Baptized? by T. E. Watson, Evangelical Press.

This book uses quotes from paedobaptists to allow them to refute
themselves. He shows that there is a great deal of contradiction in the
way paedobaptists go about establishing their case.

Q.What readily available short works present the Reformed Baptist
view of baptism?

A. There are quite a few good short works. One of the best
available
is A Critical Evaluation
of Paedobaptism by Greg Welty, which is available on the web at the
Founders Ministries site. The author is
a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary in California. He presents
a convincing rebuttal to all the standard paedobaptist arguments and
criticisms of the Baptist view. It is
available in print form from Reformed Baptist Press.

Another useful resource on the web is
A Short Catechism about
Baptism by John Tombes.
This is a very clear, succinct statement of the Reformed
Baptist view from an early proponent (1659).

Babies, Believers, and Baptism by J. K. Davies, Grace Publications,
1983, 23pp, closely follows the arguments of Kingdon's book Children of
Abraham. This is a good, readable summary of the Reformed Baptist view of
covenant theology and of children in the Old and New Testaments, but it
will leave you wishing for more detail.

Q. Considering that Old Testament believers were commanded
to place the
sign of the covenant upon their infant children, why do we not have clear
explanations in the New Testament that this pattern of infant inclusion
has been abrogated?

A. The question itself makes an unwarranted leap. Old Testament believers
were not commanded to circumcise their infant children as children of
believers but as the offspring of Abraham (Gen. 17:9). This is further
seen in the fact that the practice was to be continued through
succeeding generations with no reference to the personal faith of the
parents but rather to the child's connection to Abraham (vv. 7,9). The
blessings of the Abrahamic covenant had special reference to Abraham's
offspring, with blessings of fruitfulness and many nations from
Abraham (v. 6), of
possession of the land through Abraham's descendents (v. 8), and of
blessing to all families of the earth through Abraham's descendents (12:3).
These are the blessings that circumcision signified and sealed to
Abraham.

The New Testament confirms this view of the Abrahamic covenant. Even
the Pharisees understood that covenant blessings were for the offspring
of Abraham. When the Pharisees
came to John the Baptist for baptism, they didn't come because their
parents were in covenant but because they thought they were children of
Abraham. The discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees assume that the
real question of heart religion was whether they were children of Abraham.
Paul makes this explicit in Galatians 3:29 and other places. The only
claim that a believer has for being an heir of the promises of the
Abrahamic covenant is that s/he is a child of Abraham. Of course, the
New Testament lifts the promises of the Abrahamic covenant out of the
shadows of the Old Testament, but the essential terms of the covenant are
still the same. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant is for the seed of
Abraham.

Some have objected to this reasoning by saying that it has always
been the case that only those of faith are children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29)
and that children were given the sign of the covenant in spite of this
reality.
This is a major part of Hanko's argument in We & Our Children.
But this objection ignores the
progress of revelation and of redemptive history. The Abrahamic covenant
did refer to those who have the faith of Abraham but only under
the shadow of the more literal concept of the seed of Abraham. When
Abraham was told to circumcise his offspring, he understood it to mean
his physical descendents. Clearly, however, this meaning no longer has
significance for those under the new covenant.

The proper question,
therefore, is whether we find clear New Testament explanations of the
abrogation of the shadow (the physical significance of the seed) and
emphasis on the reality (the spiritual significance). Interestingly
enough, we find many passages that explain and emphasize this
change of focus (cf. Matt. 3:9, John 8:32-40, Gal. 3:7,9,18,29,4:28).
This observation confirms that this is the proper question.

Q.Doesn't Acts 2:39 indicate a continuation of the principle
of including children under the new covenant?

A. In his Pentecost sermon Peter states, "Repent, and let each
one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For
the promise is for you and your children and for all
who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."
The passage places two very clear conditions on all recipients of the
promise -- one from man's perspective and one from God's. From man's
perspective, the promise is to those who repent. From God's perspective,
the promise is to those whom God calls. Taken in its plain meaning, these
conditions apply to all parties: "you, your children, and those who are
far off."

The paedobaptist response to this is that it doesn't explain why Peter
would've chosen the wording "you and your children". Note first that
the term for children here simply means progeny. It does not necessarily
refer to infants. Peter's choice of wording is
quite natural to expect, as much from a baptist perspective as a paedobaptist
one. First, the most immediate concern Peter is addressing is the fact
that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of the Messiah. Just
a few weeks earlier, many of these same Jews had accepted responsibility
for Christ's blood to "be upon us and our children". They would naturally
have been concerned as to whether they and their children could be
forgiven (vv. 36-37). Peter's statement is quite natural considering this
context.

Apart from this is the more general recognition that God generally dealt
with the Jews in solidarity with their children and did not distinguish
outwardly between those whose hearts were circumcised and those whose
hearts were not. They were quite accustomed to the outward covenant
privileges enjoyed by themselves and their children. Peter, knowing
this mindset, assured them that the promises were applicable to their
children as well as to them. However, he also knew that the Jews had
tended toward presumption in their relation to God because of their
familial connection to Abraham. The Pharisees
believed that their birth privileges were sufficient to qualify them
for the preparatory rite of the new covenant (Matt. 3:7-10). The
prophets had to continually emphasize the necessity of circumcision of
the heart because the Jews so easily rested on mere outward
circumcision. Peter clearly denounced this mindset in his statement.
The promises are offered to your children, but they are offered on the
same basis as they are to you and to everyone else -- repentance on their
part, God's calling on His part.

Finally, the inclusion of the phrase "and to those who are far off"
would have been completely unexpected by Peter's Jewish audience. It
immediately put them on notice that these promises would not operate in
the old shadowy way of the OT promises to Israel. The Jews were no
longer the special custodians of the promises (Rom. 3:2, 9:4).
Instead, the promise was being sent forth conditionally to all who
would repent and believe (Acts 17:30).

We have offered a very natural explanation for Peter's inclusion of the
phrase "and your children" without resorting to a paedobaptist viewpoint.
Thus, Acts 2:39 furnishes no evidence for the paedobaptist claim that
all children of new covenant believers continue to be included automatically
in God's covenant dealings the way they were in the Old Testament. In
fact, it underscores the fact that the promise is given only to those
who demonstrate God's call by repenting of their sin.

Our view is confirmed by v. 41: "Those who received his word were
baptized". The most natural reading of this statement is that believers
only were baptized.

Q.Does the Reformed Baptist view prevent us from embracing
God's promise to be a God to our children?

A. This is a difficult issue, both emotionally and exegetically.
However, there are several things that can be said with confidence:

Whatever these passages mean, they can't be an absolute guarantee of the
salvation of our children. Therefore, we must all understand these promises
in a qualified sense.

The sense given by Doug Wilson, Edward Gross, and others that it is
conditional upon the faithfulness of the parents simply doesn't fit the
evidence. Isn't Abraham presented to us in Scripture as the father and
the example of faithfulness? Yet he was explicitly told that one of
his children was not the child of promise. Frankly, if Abraham wasn't
"faithful" in the Doug Wilson sense, I don't see how that provides a lot
of confidence for most of us ordinary believers.

God clearly works through families, a fact that can be learned both from
the experience of believers throughout the ages and from Scripture as
well. Both blessings and curses tend to flow along family lines -- read
the 2nd Commandment! The very fact that God chose to work through the
physical descendants of Abraham is an indication of God's usual ways in this
regard. However, God is still sovereign and is under no obligation to
show mercy to any individual in particular, in spite of his ordinary pattern.

Benefits ordinarily flow to children of believers as part of the
blessings of the covenant to believers, but that's not the same
as covenant membership of the
children themselves. Granted that God deals in a special way with
children of believers, this is not a ground for baptizing
infants. It is simply a statement of what God has promised to do
ordinarily (God's decretive will), but it doesn't say a thing about
what we should do (God's revealed will).

There are grounds for being hopeful, more so than for the children
of unbelievers. In Proverbs we find many of God's "general operating
principles" (rather than absolute promises). In fact,
there's one that bears directly on this issue: "Train up a child in
the way he should go, and in the end he will not depart from it."
This is a proverb, not a promise, so it does not give a
100% guarantee in this. However, it does provide great
encouragement that God ordinarily works through the means of faithful
parents to bring his grace to bear on their children. We have no
guarantees, but we do have tremendous encouragement.

The only biblical evidence that your children are in a state of grace
is that they repent of their sins, embrace Christ in faith, and demonstrate
the fruit of repentance in their lives. The Pharisees were rebuked
specifically for thinking that they could presume upon their lineage
in their standing with God (Matt. 3:7-10).

Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to
Reformed Baptist theology?

A.
Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to
some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists
fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace.

The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's
Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession,
makes it pretty clear:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ
communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the
benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word,
Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to
the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts
14:1; 2:41,42)

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of
salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation,
not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only
by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by
faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other
ordinances of God?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of
God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and
apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and
outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)

Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.

Q.
How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert
that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism?

A.
It is too narrow a reading of the terms
"means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment
of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption"
in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but
also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When
the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask
"How is the Word made
effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in
salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm
in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion
and in continuing the Christian life:

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching
of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners,
and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto
salvation.

The two catechisms have identical answers to this question.

Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response,
but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the
culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals
and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the
party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him.
Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of
converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ
through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism.
Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very
strong case that the conversion experience
and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the
two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable
manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be
separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's
perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the
believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the
benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the
Lord's."

One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as
a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that
infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect
is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have
no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not
designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment
of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the
awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God
chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or
to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem
imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes
the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then
it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone
else.

Q.
Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally
set apart and thus eligible for baptism?

A.
No. The term "sanctified" that describes an unbelieving spouse of a
believer and the
term "holy" that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek.
Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an
unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant,
one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are.
Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two
cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share
the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates
Paul's entire argument from the holiness of
the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse.
In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism.
If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not,
then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the
holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses.